<strong>Satire - 1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]"All-right, Saddam, but only if you pinky-swear that you're only going to use those nuclear warheads as end-tables!<hr></blockquote>
That was not deserving of the title satire.
Again, I never mentioned war mongering. Frankly I think you're a bit too defensive and have pigeon holed me into the 'no blood for oil' line of idiots. I'm saying the issues you're bringing up are minor.
I've said this many times, but I'll say it again, I am for this war. I just don't believe there are any altruistic motives behind it, and neither should there be, altruism has no place in global politics.
Groverat, I don't know why, but you're really being an ass in this thread. Not specifically to me. Maybe it's all the 12 year olds you have to deal with. It seems as if you're trying to incite flames. Either way it's not conducive to intelligent discussion. Keep a flat tone, if only because you're a mod.
c'mon, we're porn brothers, lets get a smile in there...
I did want to address many of the things said on this thread, but I?m just going to try and stay OnT.
This whole anti-french thing is almost sickly. I saw the most disgusting display from the US 60 mins show, which displayed a well-respected TV journalist (if there is such a thing) sprout the most racial outburst I have witnessed in the modern day. Saying how he was there in Paris, and they were all cowards, running for cover at the first sign of danger.
The US is picking its fights very carefully. Why Iraq and not NK? Why France and not Russia or Germany?
Iraq is a weak country with no apparent comparative military strength. Maybe they are picking the easy targets first. The US government has been losing many fights over the years.
I have an Irish background. Do I go up to Americans and say, ?you can thank me now??
I don?t know what is being taught in US schools, but I know it can be biased at times. If you are an American you?ll have to trust me on this. But your knowledge of history is disgraceful. It?s what you?d read off the back of a cereal packet.
When it comes to war lets not forget that US remained out of the first 2 world wars until it became profitable for them to enter. You could say (not that I would) that as soon as WW2 was declared FDR from USA chickened out and said, ?Neutral?
War is always about money or power. Even when it?s not - it is.
One final thought. When it comes to War, it?s not the people who make the decisions that fight, it?s people like you and me ? who go and die for reasons we don?t even know about.
What really bugs me is that the Australian forces are meant to be the best trained in the world (apparently this involves quiet a painless operation of getting your brain removed) and are sent in to battle first. You?d think after all the blood spilt in other people?s wars (Gallipoli ring a bell) we?d learn something. One life to live ? live it on a Mac.
P.S. US troops where not the only ones to land at Normandy, yet the seem to be the loudest.
<strong>Oh of course I don't think they'll veto. They know where their bread is buttered in the end, even if they have strong ties to Saddam.
I've been saying it all along. There will be war in Iraq and it will be a UN deal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm a french guy and I don't think that what you said reflect the reality in any way. Most of the population in Europe is against way even in uk. We have not the same background. Our countries have got war on their own territory with milion of death.
We are also consious that the US have been attacked with the world trade center but we don't think that a war in irak has nothing to do with that. It's just a pretext. It can only raise the instability of this area of the world.
GW Bush has a very bad image here in Europe. People think that he has no long term view of evolution of the world and that he is surrounded by extrem right people. And some that shoke us alot is the fact that he can't stop talking about god. Government and religious can't be mixed that way.
You know, in France, since the French Revolution, executif and religious power are separate to ensure an independance of the government and to ensure that the religion is not used to bend people mind. It seem not to be the case in US. And it's frighting. Not that religion is a bad think but it has nothing to do with governing.
The difference in position of the France and US country is base on the fact that US believe that Irak has massive destruction weapons and so must be attacked and France believes that inspections must show explicitly that Irak have massive destruction arms. We don't want to attack a country, and so people that leave in this country and already have some much problems, for no reason.
As for the veto question, it's a pure political decision. It's been discussed now in our country.
"On the other hand, this country had eight years of inspections, four years without them, and now 12 weeks with them, Is it the right time to close the door?"
Carl Blix
I wonder what would have happened if we had some weapons inspections in 1936? After all Germany where at the time bound to an agreement limiting their right to arm themselves.
<strong>I wonder what would have happened if we had some weapons inspections in 1936? After all Germany where at the time bound to an agreement limiting their right to arm themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This seems more likely to me if you're looking for the forward-looking economic reason why the US and France are falling out, and why Iraq's oil is important.
How can the US have such a huge negative on its balance sheet and an enormous trade deficit and not go tits-up? Because oil is traded in dollars. The US treasury literally has license to print as many inflation-free dollars AS IT WANTS. Theoretically up to the value of all the oil in the ground. International currency norms do not apply to the US. It's getting a free fiscal lunch, unlike every other country on the planent.
Oil = dollar. And when it runs out, sod the energy issues, the US is SHAFTED.
Of course this could happen earlier if (say) the Arab bloc decided oil was henceforth going to be traded in euros. And they're thinking about it. Or Russia, which trades most of its oil with Europe. Why price it in dollars? Iraq's oil is already priced in euros.
You want to see the nasty face of US diplomacy? The REAL fall-out with Europe. Watch this. It is NOT going to be pretty.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[italics are mine]
No it?s not. Its creditors might be. i.e. Mainly the Chinese.
It was an important mistake of UK and France at this time, they did not react (i forget what countrie was for or against a war at this time) : it was a dramatic error.
BTW, Iraq is not germany of this time. Germany of these time have brilliants scientist (von Braun ...) good officers ... In fact they where the more modern army of the time in the hand of the most terrible dictator of the history.
I wonder what would have happened if we had some weapons inspections in 1936? After all Germany where at the time bound to an agreement limiting their right to arm themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly the same thing as before..
Although Hitler kinda tried to keep minimal appearances by at first largely contracting his armor (air, land and sea) to others, and having his troops train on foreign soil, everyone knew what he was up to, but nobody had the political will to do anything about it.
The same applies today. Everyone knows what Saddam is up to, and who are his immediate co-conspirators. Some now sit on the security counsel. Yet nobody is even peeping a word about looking at Syria to get at the real hot stuff that Saddam has hidden there. It?s not even on the Radar. But maybe that will come post Gulf War II.
Although Hitler kinda tried to keep minimal appearances by at first largely contracting his amour (air, land and sea) to others, and having his troops train on foreign soil, everyone knew what he was up to, but nobody had the political will to do anything about it.
The same applies today. Everyone knows what Saddam is up to, and who are his immediate co-conspirators. Some now sit on the security counsel. Yet nobody is even peeping a word about looking at Syria to get at the real hot stuff that Saddam has hidden there. It?s not even on the Radar. But maybe that will come post Gulf War II.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The difference being that the kind of people who warned about Hitler then, are warning against a war on iraq today.
The same applies today. Everyone knows what Saddam is up to, and who are his immediate co-conspirators. Some now sit on the security counsel. Yet nobody is even peeping a word about looking at Syria to get at the real hot stuff that Saddam has hidden there. It?s not even on the Radar. But maybe that will come post Gulf War II.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the first time that i hear that story. However i am not saying it's totally impossible, but in these case, it's not a war against iraq, we have to made but a war against syria.
I think the US are struggeling with so many problems internally and externally, that things are going to be radically different in the coming years.
Its not like US world domination was invented with this administration. Its been the game for over a century. Its time things changed, like they always do. But thats a topic for a whole new thread. (And I'm not starting one right now, just to be labeled a US-hating-enemy-of-freedom-and-the-american-way once again).
It's the first time that i hear that story. However i am not saying it's totally impossible, but in these case, it's not a war against iraq, we have to made but a war against syria.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You?re putting the cart before the horse. First things first. Iraq is the key. Kissinger knew this 20+ years ago. But some ppl are just slow to the ball.
Comments
<strong>Satire - 1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]"All-right, Saddam, but only if you pinky-swear that you're only going to use those nuclear warheads as end-tables!<hr></blockquote>
That was not deserving of the title satire.
Again, I never mentioned war mongering. Frankly I think you're a bit too defensive and have pigeon holed me into the 'no blood for oil' line of idiots. I'm saying the issues you're bringing up are minor.
I've said this many times, but I'll say it again, I am for this war. I just don't believe there are any altruistic motives behind it, and neither should there be, altruism has no place in global politics.
Groverat, I don't know why, but you're really being an ass in this thread. Not specifically to me. Maybe it's all the 12 year olds you have to deal with. It seems as if you're trying to incite flames. Either way it's not conducive to intelligent discussion. Keep a flat tone, if only because you're a mod.
c'mon, we're porn brothers, lets get a smile in there...
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: serrano ]</p>
This whole anti-french thing is almost sickly. I saw the most disgusting display from the US 60 mins show, which displayed a well-respected TV journalist (if there is such a thing) sprout the most racial outburst I have witnessed in the modern day. Saying how he was there in Paris, and they were all cowards, running for cover at the first sign of danger.
The US is picking its fights very carefully. Why Iraq and not NK? Why France and not Russia or Germany?
Iraq is a weak country with no apparent comparative military strength. Maybe they are picking the easy targets first. The US government has been losing many fights over the years.
I have an Irish background. Do I go up to Americans and say, ?you can thank me now??
Or could it be ?
<a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html"; target="_blank">http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html</a>;
I don?t know what is being taught in US schools, but I know it can be biased at times. If you are an American you?ll have to trust me on this. But your knowledge of history is disgraceful. It?s what you?d read off the back of a cereal packet.
When it comes to war lets not forget that US remained out of the first 2 world wars until it became profitable for them to enter. You could say (not that I would) that as soon as WW2 was declared FDR from USA chickened out and said, ?Neutral?
War is always about money or power. Even when it?s not - it is.
One final thought. When it comes to War, it?s not the people who make the decisions that fight, it?s people like you and me ? who go and die for reasons we don?t even know about.
What really bugs me is that the Australian forces are meant to be the best trained in the world (apparently this involves quiet a painless operation of getting your brain removed) and are sent in to battle first. You?d think after all the blood spilt in other people?s wars (Gallipoli ring a bell) we?d learn something. One life to live ? live it on a Mac.
P.S. US troops where not the only ones to land at Normandy, yet the seem to be the loudest.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: MarkL ]</p>
Groverat: you are being an @r$e. I'm sorry to say it , especially since I don't know you. But you own a Mac, so you can't be all bad.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: MarkL ]</p>
<strong>Oh of course I don't think they'll veto. They know where their bread is buttered in the end, even if they have strong ties to Saddam.
I've been saying it all along. There will be war in Iraq and it will be a UN deal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm a french guy and I don't think that what you said reflect the reality in any way. Most of the population in Europe is against way even in uk. We have not the same background. Our countries have got war on their own territory with milion of death.
We are also consious that the US have been attacked with the world trade center but we don't think that a war in irak has nothing to do with that. It's just a pretext. It can only raise the instability of this area of the world.
GW Bush has a very bad image here in Europe. People think that he has no long term view of evolution of the world and that he is surrounded by extrem right people. And some that shoke us alot is the fact that he can't stop talking about god. Government and religious can't be mixed that way.
You know, in France, since the French Revolution, executif and religious power are separate to ensure an independance of the government and to ensure that the religion is not used to bend people mind. It seem not to be the case in US. And it's frighting. Not that religion is a bad think but it has nothing to do with governing.
The difference in position of the France and US country is base on the fact that US believe that Irak has massive destruction weapons and so must be attacked and France believes that inspections must show explicitly that Irak have massive destruction arms. We don't want to attack a country, and so people that leave in this country and already have some much problems, for no reason.
As for the veto question, it's a pure political decision. It's been discussed now in our country.
Carl Blix
I wonder what would have happened if we had some weapons inspections in 1936? After all Germany where at the time bound to an agreement limiting their right to arm themselves.
<strong>I wonder what would have happened if we had some weapons inspections in 1936? After all Germany where at the time bound to an agreement limiting their right to arm themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They sure were.
<strong>Petrodollars.
Petroeuros.
This seems more likely to me if you're looking for the forward-looking economic reason why the US and France are falling out, and why Iraq's oil is important.
How can the US have such a huge negative on its balance sheet and an enormous trade deficit and not go tits-up? Because oil is traded in dollars. The US treasury literally has license to print as many inflation-free dollars AS IT WANTS. Theoretically up to the value of all the oil in the ground. International currency norms do not apply to the US. It's getting a free fiscal lunch, unlike every other country on the planent.
Oil = dollar. And when it runs out, sod the energy issues, the US is SHAFTED.
Of course this could happen earlier if (say) the Arab bloc decided oil was henceforth going to be traded in euros. And they're thinking about it. Or Russia, which trades most of its oil with Europe. Why price it in dollars? Iraq's oil is already priced in euros.
You want to see the nasty face of US diplomacy? The REAL fall-out with Europe. Watch this. It is NOT going to be pretty.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[italics are mine]
No it?s not. Its creditors might be. i.e. Mainly the Chinese.
<strong>
They sure were.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It was an important mistake of UK and France at this time, they did not react (i forget what countrie was for or against a war at this time) : it was a dramatic error.
BTW, Iraq is not germany of this time. Germany of these time have brilliants scientist (von Braun ...) good officers ... In fact they where the more modern army of the time in the hand of the most terrible dictator of the history.
<strong>
.
.
I wonder what would have happened if we had some weapons inspections in 1936? After all Germany where at the time bound to an agreement limiting their right to arm themselves.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly the same thing as before..
Although Hitler kinda tried to keep minimal appearances by at first largely contracting his armor (air, land and sea) to others, and having his troops train on foreign soil, everyone knew what he was up to, but nobody had the political will to do anything about it.
The same applies today. Everyone knows what Saddam is up to, and who are his immediate co-conspirators. Some now sit on the security counsel. Yet nobody is even peeping a word about looking at Syria to get at the real hot stuff that Saddam has hidden there. It?s not even on the Radar. But maybe that will come post Gulf War II.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
-too much, if you ask me.
<strong>Does Iraq have to be as bad as Germany to act?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The question is not to be as bad but to be as dangerous.
Iraq is not a match for US, now, or in the next decades. Compared to what was germany at the time, iraq is a joke.
<strong>
Exactly the same thing as before..
Although Hitler kinda tried to keep minimal appearances by at first largely contracting his amour (air, land and sea) to others, and having his troops train on foreign soil, everyone knew what he was up to, but nobody had the political will to do anything about it.
The same applies today. Everyone knows what Saddam is up to, and who are his immediate co-conspirators. Some now sit on the security counsel. Yet nobody is even peeping a word about looking at Syria to get at the real hot stuff that Saddam has hidden there. It?s not even on the Radar. But maybe that will come post Gulf War II.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The difference being that the kind of people who warned about Hitler then, are warning against a war on iraq today.
<strong>They're Shafted already, this is just the beginning of the end...
You really think so?
<strong>
The same applies today. Everyone knows what Saddam is up to, and who are his immediate co-conspirators. Some now sit on the security counsel. Yet nobody is even peeping a word about looking at Syria to get at the real hot stuff that Saddam has hidden there. It?s not even on the Radar. But maybe that will come post Gulf War II.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's the first time that i hear that story. However i am not saying it's totally impossible, but in these case, it's not a war against iraq, we have to made but a war against syria.
<strong>
The difference being that the kind of people who warned about Hitler then, are warning against a war on iraq today.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hahaha. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
oh, that was good.
<strong>You really think so? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the US are struggeling with so many problems internally and externally, that things are going to be radically different in the coming years.
Its not like US world domination was invented with this administration. Its been the game for over a century. Its time things changed, like they always do. But thats a topic for a whole new thread. (And I'm not starting one right now, just to be labeled a US-hating-enemy-of-freedom-and-the-american-way once again).
<strong>
It's the first time that i hear that story. However i am not saying it's totally impossible, but in these case, it's not a war against iraq, we have to made but a war against syria.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You?re putting the cart before the horse. First things first. Iraq is the key. Kissinger knew this 20+ years ago. But some ppl are just slow to the ball.